The FSFE launches today its best practises in licensing for Free and Open Source Software project. Targeted at developers and companies, these best practices show you how to make it clear to others wh...

I don't want credit monitoring from these companies. The companies that expose all our data are the same companies trying to sell us a service to protect that data. If they get something wrong or somebody "steals our identity", we're responsible for correcting it. What a racket. It seems this "industry" externalizes all the costs to people whose information it collects and then exposes. They win no matter what happens.

I want them to pay for credit freezes. (I want them to do some other things too, but it wouldn't be polite to express those things aloud.)

Thanks for posting. I signed; my in-form comment (presumably destined for Twitter and other microblogging sites) was "This matters outside the EU too -- public code is code available for the whole world to use."

Very happy to learn of this, more so that the Software Liberty Association of Taiwan (SLAT, slat.org) is one of the organizations supporting the campaign. I think SLAT also helps translate the campaign website and the video into Traditional Chinese. Press release from SLAT: https://slat-tw.blogspot.tw/2017/09/public-money-public-code.html .

My congressional representation is going to be cross with me writing to them yet again. I might get added to the "Crank Index". There is a minor issue with just plopping an open source license in a code release by the federal government based upon something odd a Treasury bureau did in a legal position it took about FAQs on the bureau's home page. The odd thing is that it disavowed the FAQs another part of the bureau wrote, said they were invalid, said they could not be relied on by people with business before the bureau, and that they could not be used by people with business before the bureau to back any legal position. Only matters gazetted appropriately could be used. An appropriate statement may be needed for licenses in the Federal Register just to avoid an about-face maneuvers by later bureaucrats.

And so we then come to our policy work, where I feel we need to
elaborate a bit on what has changed in 2017. Our budget for 2016 was 4k
for policy work (most of the work on policy is staff time). You will see
that when we publish the results for 2017, the costs for policy has
shot up remarkably. We have increased the budget to 29k for 2017 to be
able to invest in our Public Money - Public Code campaign, which we hope
will be a major driver for our work in 2018.

So, if you depend on FLOSS which is still based on Qt 4 be sure to try to port it. If you depend on a proprietary vendor software which uses Qt 4 then you better start telling them it's really time to update it. Really.

So today is the last (official) day of DebConf17 and it looks like #844431: "packages should build reproducibly" will be merged into debian-policy today! So I'm super excited, super happy, quite tired and a bit sad (DebConf is ending…) right now!